alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10257 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

ELOY LOZANO, III

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 298

- 1

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Eloy Lozano, III, has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Lozano h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

rel evant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 14, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10257 Document: 00515271556 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2020No. 19

- 10257

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
excused from further respo nsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-10257 Document: 00515271556 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2020
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATE OFPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18United States Code**

The undersigned, being the Principal Financial Officerof Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”), hereby certifies thatthe Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2006, filed with the United States Securitiesand Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in suchQuarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to thePartnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| Date: October 30, 2006 |                            |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                        | /s/ MARK A. MAKI                |
|                        | Mark A. Maki                    |
|                        | *Vice President, Finance*       |
|                        | *(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
# C_2020433EN.01001402.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — BY v CX

(Case C-637/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Notion of ‘public’ - Transmission by electronic means to a court of a protected work as evidence in court proceedings)

(2020/C 433/16)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BY

Defendant: CX

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘communication to the public’, referred to in that provision, does not cover the transmission by electronic means of a protected work to a court, as evidence in judicial proceedings between individuals.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---
# C_2018427EN.01002501.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/25

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-786/14: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others v Council of the European Union and Others

(Case C-598/18 P)

(2018/C 427/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Chatziioakeimidou, I. Gurov, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others, European Commission, European Central Bank, Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the parts of the contested judgments in which the General Court dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council in respect of the Euro Group; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the parts of the contested judgments in which the General Court dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council in respect of the Euro Group;

| — | and order the respondents to pay the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

and order the respondents to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal of the Council seeks to set aside the parts of the contested judgment in which the General Court dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council in respect of the Euro Group and is based on the following grounds:

| — | the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the Euro Group is a ‘body of the Union formally established by the Treaties’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the Euro Group is a ‘body of the Union formally established by the Treaties’;

| — | the General Court has erred in law in dismissing the plea of inadmissibility of the Council while failing to identify any ‘powers’ conferred on the Euro Group by the Treaties; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court has erred in law in dismissing the plea of inadmissibility of the Council while failing to identify any ‘powers’ conferred on the Euro Group by the Treaties;

| — | the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the admission of the plea of inadmissibility, submitted by the Council, would result in ‘the establishment, within the legal system of the European Union itself, of entities whose acts and conduct could not result in the European Union incurring liability’. |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the admission of the plea of inadmissibility, submitted by the Council, would result in ‘the establishment, within the legal system of the European Union itself, of entities whose acts and conduct could not result in the European Union incurring liability’.

---
August 29, 2002

24378

#### State v. Lacuesta

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extractd from the
Statement of Financial Position at July 31, 1997 (Unaudited) and the Statement
of Operations for the three months ended July 31, 1997 (Unaudited) and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000880121
<NAME>                        Market America, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         20,713,393
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  56,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,787,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               22,617,087
<PP&E>                                         998,964
<DEPRECIATION>                                 328,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 23,362,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,814,354
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       199
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,292,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   23,362,371
<SALES>                                        19,463,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19,463,823
<CGS>                                          2,652,779
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,652,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               12,577,306
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,440,947
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,788,860
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,652,087
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.13
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-02-1999
<CASH>                                         200,950
<SECURITIES>                                   137,528
<RECEIVABLES>                                  159,007
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,349
<INVENTORY>                                     17,521
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               544,066
<PP&E>                                         244,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 733,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          247,325
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           963
<OTHER-SE>                                     457,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   733,531
<SALES>                                      1,437,829
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,437,829
<CGS>                                        1,167,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,394,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (15,897)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,118
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,594
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,524
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
# C_2010148EN.01000501.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltató, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

(Case C-96/08) (1)

1

(Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Vocational training levy - Basis for calculating the levy to be paid by undertakings established in the national territory - Account taken of the wage costs of workers employed in a branch established in another Member State - Double taxation - Whether it is possible to reduce gross liability to the levy)

2010/C 148/06

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Pest Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltató, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi Kft.

Applicant:

Defendants: Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Pest Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — National rules requiring account to be taken, for the purposes of determining the basis for the vocational training levy of a company established on national territory, of the wage costs of workers employed in a branch established in another Member State, even if the company in question is subject to an equivalent charge, by reason of the employment of those workers, in that other Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude Member State legislation under which an undertaking, which has its seat in that State, is obliged to pay a levy such as the vocational training levy, the amount of which is calculated on the basis of its wage costs including those wage costs incurred at a branch of that undertaking established in another Member State, if, in practice, such an undertaking is prevented, with regard to that branch, from benefiting from the possibilities provided for in that legislation of reducing that levy or from having access to those possibilities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

          CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of E Com Ventures, Inc. (the "Company")
of Form 10-Q for the period ending July 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Katz,
Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


                                                 By:   By: /S/ Michael W. Katz
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Michael W. Katz
                                                       President and
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                                       December 13, 2005
# C_2008051EN.01005501.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/55

---

Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex

(Case T-476/07)

(2008/C 51/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of FRONTEX to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of FRONTEX to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful tenderer;

| — | order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 500 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 500 000 EUR;

| — | order the Commission (DIGIT) to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission (DIGIT) to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected;

| — | order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call for an open tender for the provision of informatics services and hardware and software licences (OJ 2007/S 114-139890). The applicant contests the defendant's decision of 3 October 2007 rejecting the applicant's bid and informing the applicant that the contract will be awarded to another tenderer.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the defendant failed to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC and used evaluation criteria that were not expressly included in the call for tender. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment.

---
DEP i O fTRANS :

M - \i R

OST-2010-004 6 USDO T Secretar y Dea r Sir : I f yo u wer e tol dtha t

soo nyou r

lif e woul dchang e drasticall y becaus e a handfu l o f

peopl e wan t

i t tha t way , woul dyo u b e mad ? Especially , i f n o on e aske dyou r

opinion , an dthe y shoul dhav e don e so . W e fee l tha t wa y s o as k u s t o vot e an dw e wil l giv e ou r opinio nt o kee p mountai ntime . Rura l Residen t Merce r Count y
# C_2010246EN.01000301.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-573/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Measures transposing the directive)

2010/C 246/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and G. Fiengo, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 18 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Incorrect transposition — Derogations — Requirements

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that by failing to transpose Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds, into Italian law in a manner which is wholly in compliance with that directive, and by failing to transpose Article 9 of that directive in a manner which ensures that the derogations adopted by the competent Italian authorities comply with the conditions and requirements referred to in that article, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 7, 9 to 11, 13 and 18 of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by failing to transpose Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds, into Italian law in a manner which is wholly in compliance with that directive, and by failing to transpose Article 9 of that directive in a manner which ensures that the derogations adopted by the competent Italian authorities comply with the conditions and requirements referred to in that article, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 7, 9 to 11, 13 and 18 of the directive;

| 2. | orders the Italian Republic to bear the costs, including those linked to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Italian Republic to bear the costs, including those linked to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
(Committees not listed did not meet)
  No committee meetings were held.
```
#### In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of Thomas D. MAYFIELD, Petitioner.

No. A-12569.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 5, 1958.

Thomas D. Mayfield, petitioner, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Owen J. Watts, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The record reflects that petitioner is confined in the state penitentiary by virtue of a conviction in the District Court of Logan County, for the crime of intent to rape, and that petitioner was sentenced to serve a term of six (6) years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary and at this date said sentence is not fully performed. The Court has before it the petition, returns to the writ, and the judgment and sentence of the court. The petitioner contends that his plea of guilty in said cause was obtained by threat and coercion and that he was not advised of his constitutional rights prior to pleading and was without counsel. The records of this court reveal that the petitioner had heretofore filed such a writ upon the same facts and grounds presented herein. The court ruled unfavorably to *1074the petition in that case on the 7th day of May, 1957.

This court is consistent in the rule that it will not entertain subsequent writs upon the same grounds and facts as related in prior application. Ex parte Davis, 74 Okl.Cr. 75, 123 P.2d 300; Ex parte Peaker, 87 Okl.Cr. 139, 194 P.2d 893.

In view of the serious nature of petitioner’s allegations the court has requested and received a certified copy of the District Court minutes at the time of petitioner’s plea, judgment and sentence; said minutes show that petitioner was fully advised of his legal rights, entered a plea of guilty, waived time in which to plead and was sentenced by the court. It is apparent that the court had jurisdiction of the person of the subject matter, and the authority to pass sentence. No appeal was perfected and the matter having been previously passed on by this court, the writ is denied.